minimum usable product

Minimum viability is very much a product-outwards perspective: what’s the least amount of work we can do to find out whether going down this line of thinking is a business idea that’s worth being invested in. It has nothing to do with viability for users.

It’s a well worn notion that the right way to build a product is to iterate through stages of development, where at each stage you deliver something that, on it’s own, provides real incremental value by accomplishing the user's goal appreciably faster/cheaper/better than was possible before. A functional approach.

What makes a product viable for use is something that’s more usable at each stage of creation; that creates experiences of greater efficacy at every turn; that provides incremental wins that add up to something much greater—a sense of joy. [Something I’ve seen enough times to say it with a straight face.] This is distinctly not a product-out orientation—but instead a user-in orientation.

We have to make up for the pain we put users through--our stumbling attempts at building something useful, the suffering of (re)learning how to do something, breaking their workflows--with some pleasure on the other side.

Leading to questions that should be answered (see the HEART framework for thoroughness):

What is the qualitative, subjective improvement from the perspective of the user? Does it feel better? Does it yield results of higher quality?

What is the quantitative, objective improvement from the perspective of the user? Does it get the task done faster? Does it yield more results?

What is the quantitative, objective improvement from the perspective of the product? Is it faster? Does it do more of what users want?